Associated Press: TSA to allow Orlando-Sanford (SFB) Airport to use private screeners
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 10,306
Associated Press: TSA to allow Orlando-Sanford (SFB) Airport to use private screeners
Some news out of Florida today:
The Associated Press (posted on Miami Herald's website):
TSA to allow airport to use private screeners
Posted on Monday, 06.11.12
A short quote:
The Associated Press (posted on Miami Herald's website):
TSA to allow airport to use private screeners
Posted on Monday, 06.11.12
A short quote:
ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Transportation Security Administration will allow Orlando Sanford International Airport to opt out of using only federal agents for security screening.
TSA made the announcement Monday, which will allow the airport to go forward with changing to private security operations under federal supervision. The agency previously denied Sanford's application.
TSA made the announcement Monday, which will allow the airport to go forward with changing to private security operations under federal supervision. The agency previously denied Sanford's application.
#2
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Step one: Privatize airport security under TSA guidelines.
Step two: Replace all current screeners and supervisors with military veterans returning home. Not only are you getting people infinitely more qualified to actually provide a layer of security instead of a layer of stupidity, but you're taking jobs away from the pizza-box dwellers and giving them to those who've truly earned them.
Step three: Increase passenger safety and satisfaction. Save billions of dollars.
Step two: Replace all current screeners and supervisors with military veterans returning home. Not only are you getting people infinitely more qualified to actually provide a layer of security instead of a layer of stupidity, but you're taking jobs away from the pizza-box dwellers and giving them to those who've truly earned them.
Step three: Increase passenger safety and satisfaction. Save billions of dollars.
#3
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Step two: Replace all current screeners and supervisors with military veterans returning home. Not only are you getting people infinitely more qualified to actually provide a layer of security instead of a layer of stupidity, but you're taking jobs away from the pizza-box dwellers and giving them to those who've truly earned them.
... but securing an airport checkpoint is qualitatively different from securing an honest-to-goodness war zone. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the skills learned on a battlefield would automatically translate to an airport checkpoint. (After all, someone once said that the chief job of the military is to kill people and break stuff ... neither of which should be happening at a checkpoint on a regular basis ...)
#4
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SAN
Programs: DL GM, UA 1P, AA fallen Gold, Marriott Gold, Priority Pass, Hertz #1 Gold
Posts: 294
OP wasn't it enough that you started this thread back in March? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...screeners.html
#5
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Step two: Replace all current screeners and supervisors with military veterans returning home. Not only are you getting people infinitely more qualified to actually provide a layer of security instead of a layer of stupidity, but you're taking jobs away from the pizza-box dwellers and giving them to those who've truly earned them.
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
OP wasn't it enough that you started this thread back in March? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...screeners.html
#7
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Many veterans come home to no job at all. I think the bigger insult to them is that they sit unemployed while GED-toting career failures hired off a pizza box are tasked with securing air travel.
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,321
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
I'm all in favor of supporting our veterans ...
... but securing an airport checkpoint is qualitatively different from securing an honest-to-goodness war zone. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the skills learned on a battlefield would automatically translate to an airport checkpoint. (After all, someone once said that the chief job of the military is to kill people and break stuff ... neither of which should be happening at a checkpoint on a regular basis ...)
... but securing an airport checkpoint is qualitatively different from securing an honest-to-goodness war zone. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the skills learned on a battlefield would automatically translate to an airport checkpoint. (After all, someone once said that the chief job of the military is to kill people and break stuff ... neither of which should be happening at a checkpoint on a regular basis ...)
#10
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
And furthermore, some of the offenses that people complain the most about regarding TSOs could be characterized as militaristic attitudes (e.g. barking at passengers, verbal aggression, demands of unquestioning obedience). A veteran might be more likely to bring those attitudes into their work as a TSO in inappropriate ways.
All I'm saying is ... being good at one job doesn't automatically make you good at an unrelated job. Serving in the infantry and serving as an airport screener are largely unrelated jobs.
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Many (if not most) TSOs exhibit the same ability.
And furthermore, some of the offenses that people complain the most about regarding TSOs could be characterized as militaristic attitudes (e.g. barking at passengers, verbal aggression, demands of unquestioning obedience). A veteran might be more likely to bring those attitudes into their work as a TSO in inappropriate ways.
All I'm saying is ... being good at one job doesn't automatically make you good at an unrelated job. Serving in the infantry and serving as an airport screener are largely unrelated jobs.
And furthermore, some of the offenses that people complain the most about regarding TSOs could be characterized as militaristic attitudes (e.g. barking at passengers, verbal aggression, demands of unquestioning obedience). A veteran might be more likely to bring those attitudes into their work as a TSO in inappropriate ways.
All I'm saying is ... being good at one job doesn't automatically make you good at an unrelated job. Serving in the infantry and serving as an airport screener are largely unrelated jobs.
Serving as an banking executive and serving as a TSAer are largely unrelated. Armed forces vet and TSAer are not. Both are charged with protecting the country.
#12
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Lovely non-sequitur there.
But if you're going to go there, let me point this out. The US Army recruits on pizza boxes, too:
Yet we seem to hold these pizza-box-ad-responders in higher respect than those who respond to pizza-box-ads from TSA.
My point: I'm not concerned about where someone finds out about a job. I'm concerned about whether or not they're qualified to do the job. The previous job held may, or may not, have any relevance to that question.
But in completely different ways.
The vast majority of TSOs are not trained in the use of firearms in order to perform their duties, because it's not relevant. All members of the armed forces are trained in the use of firearms, because it's directly relevant. (They are "armed" forces, of course.) The missions are different; consequently, the means used to accomplish those missions are different.
And one could easily argue that banking executives also have a charge to protect our country. Banks are subjected to a host of regulations in the name of "homeland security". (Their effectiveness or appropriateness is, of course, a debate for another forum.)
Again, back to my point: prior experience in an unrelated job does not, a priori, make one qualified for the next job.
But if you're going to go there, let me point this out. The US Army recruits on pizza boxes, too:
Yet we seem to hold these pizza-box-ad-responders in higher respect than those who respond to pizza-box-ads from TSA.
My point: I'm not concerned about where someone finds out about a job. I'm concerned about whether or not they're qualified to do the job. The previous job held may, or may not, have any relevance to that question.
The vast majority of TSOs are not trained in the use of firearms in order to perform their duties, because it's not relevant. All members of the armed forces are trained in the use of firearms, because it's directly relevant. (They are "armed" forces, of course.) The missions are different; consequently, the means used to accomplish those missions are different.
And one could easily argue that banking executives also have a charge to protect our country. Banks are subjected to a host of regulations in the name of "homeland security". (Their effectiveness or appropriateness is, of course, a debate for another forum.)
Again, back to my point: prior experience in an unrelated job does not, a priori, make one qualified for the next job.
#13
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Like being a convicted heroin dealer is an immediate and prejudicial disqualifier for being a pharmacy technician - or being a TSA employee is a disqualifier for any job that requires ethics.
#14
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Up-thread, T.J. Bender said that he'd replace all TSA screeners and supervisors with returning armed forces veterans, because they would be "infinitely more qualified". I don't think that conclusion follows as naturally as one might expect.
#15
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
It's only the veterans of affairs like Abu Ghraib that I'd expect to end up in the TSA.